Why did the pretty much all the Spanish and Portuguese colonies totally fail in comparison to most of the British colonies when the Spaniards and Ports colonised the new world first and accumlated more land and jungle control before the British coloniezed the north?
for example:
3rd world countries:
>South America
>Latin America
>most of Carribian
Most contients under Spanish and Portuguese control
>Latin America
>South America
>most of Carribian
>West Coast USA
Literally most comfy and rich counrties on earth:
>Canada
>Austraila
>New Zeland
British Colonies
>USA East Coast
>Canada
>Australia
>New Zealnd
>Some Carrbian Islands
I mean it strikes me odd that the Spanish had so much control yet all thier colonies failed, what happend? Even the most sucessful sub-sahran african country South Africa was origneally a British colony
wtf happened?
>>349051
Colonies weren't attempts at new nations. They were a means of extracting wealth from foreign lands. They didn't fail.
/thread
>>349051
Because Spanish Empire failed in the XIX century, so their colonies could get independence, but they cannot get benefits and support from their metropoli.
British Empire failed in XX century, but their colonies were loyal to them.
>>349172
This. Look french colonies, they are even worst.
>>349051
>>349051
Generally Spanish/Portuguese colonies existed for the purpose of economic exploitation rather than resettlement. European populations of the colonies would be comparatively small, and the colonizers were more concerned with getting their money's worth out of the land than they were with creating a place a bunch of people would want to live.
Take the Spanish claims on most of North America. Sure they may have legally "owned" the land, but there were next to no Spaniards in most of that area.
With pretty much every former colony, the ones that are the best off are those that were settled for living in rather than purely exploiting. That's why Argentina and Brazil were so successful (although Argentina's fucked up everything recently) - they had lots of Europeans immigrating to make it their home rather than to exploit it.
>>349284
>Generally Spanish/Portuguese colonies existed for the purpose of economic exploitation rather than resettlement
You are right about Portuguese colonies, but Spanish colonies were in their majority for setteling and economic exploitation. Sure Philippines and African colonies weren't for setteling, but most Latin American colonies had a big Spanish population.
>>349466
Cause the only white Spaniards in the new world were the Criollo. They were a minority population by and large, yet controlled everything and organized every revolution for independence from Spain.
>>349051
Argentina, Chile, and Uruguay are all pretty decent.
>>349051
Forgot to mention the British Africa and India?
The west coast has been under American control longer than Spanish and Mexican control combined
>>349051
Because shitspanics are shit compared to Anglos
>>349697
>criollos organized every revolution for independence
Tupac Amaru had a near successful revolution against the Spanish, and would have probably succeeded too if the church had been on his side.
>>349284
There was a lot of settling, just not much of a civilization effort. Both iberians actually pushed for mixed marriages to boost the local population quickly. But those guys mostly lived around plantations and mines and stuff.
Brazil actually got some cultural boost after the Portuguese royals fled there with their court.
>>349697
Only in the beginning. Later on the large mixed race populations would enter positions of power albeit still under Spanish rule.
>>350204
Yes, the Universties were built just for the lulz.
>>349051
Because Catholic work ethics lmao.
